Tokyo Dawn Labs

FabienTDR · Post by **FabienTDR** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:38 pm

So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:52 pm

FabienTDR wrote:So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?

no, you can never have enough mid band.

kj.metissage · Post by **kj.metissage** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:29 pm

FabienTDR wrote:So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?

Nope !!!

By the way ? It would be even better if you hire Patrick for doing the GUI

. Yes the one that did the Variety of Sound ones.

sunny_j · Post by **sunny_j** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:55 am

Please NO ANALYZER. Also, I'd prefer if we could have 20Hz ~ 20/30/40 KHz frequency controls(full range) on all the bands.

nilhartman · Post by **nilhartman** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:15 pm

FabienTDR wrote:So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?

Well, that's enough for me most of the times, but I'd be happy with all the features in your first post Fabien. 4 bands + HPF/LPF is all I'll ever need.

What I meant in my previous post is that I simply wish SlickEQ GE will be as uncluttered and pleasant to use as current free SlickEQ is.

So, for me, no analyser nor DSP panel with a billion options (if you ever add such features, I think a few "accuracy/quality" modes with explicit names is much more user friendly, the same way U-He did with Diva) is needed/wanted. No need to change the GUI either, it looks great this way.

My 2 cents.

Cooker · Post by **Cooker** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:18 pm

FabienTDR wrote:So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?

Actually yeah (including adding a LPF), who would use this eq to correct nasty spikes anyway? as if there aren't enough options already

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:50 pm

Cooker wrote:
FabienTDR wrote:So you guys really think that 3 bands (with slightly more Q options) would be sufficient as well?
Actually yeah (including adding a LPF), who would use this eq to correct nasty spikes anyway? as if there aren't enough options already

no nasty spikes but gentle taming of the sensible mid range.

Cooker · Post by **Cooker** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:08 pm

A non-problematic source never needs too much freq. mangling, just some brighten/sweeten or darkening and mojo. Slight Q adjust can be ok for nailing a tone but more bands will only transform/complicate things.

.. sorry, I edited your post by mistake! [Fabien] ...

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:29 pm

well, there are low-mids and high-mids but anyway: you could leave the 2nd mid-knob untouched but keep in mind others may have a different approach then you and while you could leave the 2nd mid-knob untouched it didn't work the other way around: so it would be the best for all to add one imho.

FabienTDR · Post by **FabienTDR** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:55 pm

Cooker wrote:A non-problematic source never needs too much freq. mangling, just some brighten/sweeten or darkening and mojo. Slight Q adjust can be ok for nailing a tone but more bands will only transform/complicate things.

Sounds like a really good argument to me. I like the idea of drawing a clear line between "EQing a source into the mix" and "EQing a technical problem away".

3 bands in conjunction with auto-gain almost feels/sounds to me as if it had more bands (4-5).

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:58 pm

well, i was the guy who wants the 2nd mid-knob.

FabienTDR · Post by **FabienTDR** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:00 pm

murnau wrote:well, i was the guy who wants the 2nd mid-knob.

Ooops, sorry. Edited.

Well, "more" is a tempting option as well. It's more of a question at which point the concept breaks and start to annoy ppl.

Mercado_Negro · Post by **Mercado_Negro** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:43 am

I think it's OK as is, maybe just a few more options like narrow and wide for mid band bandwith, an optional slope for high/low shelves which is too tight right now, it should really go down/up low/high enough (like down to 2kHz if you're doing it at 12kHz, for example). If I need a new band I'd just insert a new instance.

What I really think it needs is more work on the output stages. The sound needs to be "smoother" (these things are really hard to explain in words because they're too subjective) and I'm not using this beauty because none the stages realy worked for me (there's always a bit of harshness in the result, dunno how to explain it sorry).

Hermetech Mastering · Post by **Hermetech Mastering** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:37 am

For mastering, I often like to play a mid boost off of a mid cut at slightly different frequencies, or use one for cutting mud, whilst the other boosts the vocal slightly to make it "pop", etc., so having two mid bands would be best for my purposes. I don't think that would be too much/overkill at all, and would save having to use another instance/more CPU/screen real estate etc.

David Else · Post by **David Else** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:34 pm

The only things I would want to see added would be:

- A LPF with a switchable slope (also add switchable slope to the HPF)
- Any updates to improve sound quality, if this is even possible as it sounds great as it is

I think the design of this EQ is fantastic and needs very little adding. It could be cool to allow a back panel that gives more control over parameters in the engine to change the sound in subtle ways.

Tokyo Dawn Labs

KVR Audio

TDR VOS SlickEQ - Gentleman's Edition - Warm up!